dimreepr

What fallacy?

It wasn't me that suggested we disenfranchise those we don't trust...

As previously stated, your argument is, old people are too stupid to vote. All I'm saying is, toddlers are just as stupid, but will balance old stupidity with a youthful version of stupid. I imagine the number of spoiled ballots is roughly equal...

So, whats your argument?

Everyone thinks they're correct and no one really understands the consequences of their action's; like in poker, and you get pocket ace's and a fish (bad player) to catch, so you go all in knowing they call everything. We turn the card's and my grin widens, he's got 10 3 off suit (snigger, what an idiot), the flop is 3 3 3. I previously mentioned, the well reseached, herd intelligence, for instance a herd of wildebeest (perhaps the least intelligent individual animal) is far more successful, statistically, at crossing a crocodile infested river than the more intelligent zebra. If we want herd intelligence to work in the best interest of our society, then we need the whole herd to vote, in spite of intellectual capacity.

So, what's wrong with giving toddlers a vote?

Societies tend to follow the same ageing pattern, as we get older we become more fearful of losing what we've got bc we're comfortable with what we've got and can't imagine life without <insert imagined/emotional need>. +1 BTW @sethoflagos Disenfranchiseing in a democracy is always a bad idea, it's one step further down the wrong path. What we need, is legislation to prevent this happening. We should be, if we want a fair democracy, logically. Statistically, the herd is more, intelligent/often right than the expert.

Power, is the false hope we all (by which I mean 'the elderly') cling too, bc we, the elderly, don't trust our kids, for some inexplicable reason??? Perhaps we fear the retribution...

Netanyahu is either the world's best Trump whisperer or he has a healthy grip on his balls. The average Iranian that wants a revolution, is no closer to their goal, whatever the outcome of this attack; the authorities will still have the firepower.

What makes you think he's lying?

YOUR FIRED!!!

I'm not accusing anyone of being a luddite, just that some humans fit the definition. I think it's pretty much accepted that technology in general has made our lives better, and while I'm not suggesting that won't also be true of computing in general, AI has the potential to reverse the trend.

So what's your point? If it's insight, then I'm a god, if it's coincidence, then I'm lucky???

Again the resolution will fade over time, both phonetically (as the accent changes) and litterally (as the medium denature), at best it extends the inevitable 'death of useful meaning'.

But we are seeing the beginning of societal push back (Australia et al), which means the AI designer's will be forced towards a more altruistic initial objective; hopefully with a rinse repeat cycle, that will error correct when the automatic biased initial conditions are set. Step by step towards the potential hope that AI is friendlyish and the memes won't lead us to armageddon.

Indeed, so what was wrong?

It's kinda like the reason for god/karma, it's a reason to believe that this entitled fuckwit will pay a fair price, preferably in full view...

I have little doubt that an aboriginal ancestestor that started the oral story, would not understand the current version; but if they could they would recognise... 😉

The written language, however presented has a best before date bc it's written, it's like a snapshot in meaning that slowly loses resolution. After a generation or two, the original meaning can be changed, so that we might think we understand what the words meant and everyone would agree, other than the author. Orally, language and meaning develop at the same rate bc the error correction is always current. "I luk forwerd to klarifikashen" looks fine to me (a dislexit). 😉

I largely agree, it's a scary future; we are either sitting on the precipice of a brave new world, where all the boring task's are done for us and we're free to think, or an infinitely sustainable autocracy with AI as the king maker and no-one is aloud to think. I honestly don't know which would be preferable, when the dust settles. Somer tastes so good.

Why would a different approach to language mean that I understand what a dipshit is when spelt deepmidden?

The media is muddying the waters though, it only takes notice of the negative effects, like the guy who formed an intimate relationship with a relatively primitive AI chatbot, which reinforced his delusion about assasinating Queen liz II with a crossbow. For every example of that type of extreme human behaviour, there will be an example of an extreme at the other end of the spectrum. Most of us don't need a rampant influence to be a luddite... 😉

I see it as being seen to do the right thing and Andrew is a target that so few doubt his guilt, so it obfuscates the more guilty but less palitable option's...

The fundamantals in this context will change, but one thing that history teaches us is, some humans will always rage against the machine/societal norm's with a new line of thinking that contradicts the accepted fundamentals. Perhaps the rise of AI fakes will be what teaches the next generation to think critically and rise above the average. It strikes me that this question runs parallel to the 'was Marx right' question.

Indeed, but should we just let him choose bc he is entitled to do so? Who gets to choose the depth of the turtle's???